Older readers may remember the “New Coke” debacle in 1985, in which Coca-Cola tried to reformulate Coke in response to lagging sales, found the revised product flopped badly, and returned to the original formulation, calling it “Classic Coke.” Likewise, Kamala Harris has now been repackaged and is being marketed as the electoral “Classic Coke.”
In 2020, Harris put up a wetted finger into the political winds, and marketed herself as a fiery progressive, raising bail money for jailed rioters and endorsing the defunding of the police, positions which have since proven unpopular, leaving her with less than 5 percent of the Democratic vote. Now in 2024, the Democrat bosses and media have repackaged her as a moderate, trying to get voters to forget why they previously rejected her.
Harris then named Minnesota’s Tim Walz as her running mate, and “reformulated” the progressive into “Coach Walz,” a regular guy. Surprisingly for a party which embraces DEI, she followed tradition and chose yet another older, white, heterosexual, cisgendered man. Walz’s appointment tells us a lot about where a Harris administration would head.
Republicans are unlikely to encounter many surprises out of Trump, as he continues to vent his unfiltered stream of consciousness, and to bask in the rock star-like adulation of his fans. We already know what to expect. Unless he manages to let something really appalling bubble out, it will just be the usual undisciplined, self-indulgent bluster. And my cat, an ardent, angry Democrat ever since we had him fixed, pronounces himself deeply offended by J.D. Vance’s “cat lady” remark.
While progressive Harris could have used her VP selection to reassure nervous moderates, she instead chose another progressive. On immigration, Walz supported “sanctuary” policies and providing illegals with subsidized medical insurance and free tuition at state colleges. He jumped into the war on gender by supporting gender-affirming care for minors and, bizarrely, by requiring schools to provide menstrual products in all bathrooms used by menstruating students.
Embarrassed by the moniker “Tampon Tim,” Democrats claim that the Minnesota law doesn’t require schools to put those products in boys’ bathrooms, but a reading of the law clearly reveals that in fact, all restrooms used by menstruating students includes trans boys using the boys’ bathroom. This was deliberate.
Harris could have chosen popular Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a moderate who might have delivered Pennsylvania, a swing state that would help her more than Walz’s reliably Democratic Minnesota, but her pro-Palestinian progressive pals loudly vetoed him. This may disturb Jewish Democrats who were already shocked by the virulence of antisemitic sentiments among progressives at Gaza demonstrations and worry about the progressive orientation of a Harris administration.
Harris faces more scrutiny. For example, while supporters dismiss as a mere “personal matter” her dating relationship with 60-year-old Assembly Speaker Willie Brown when she was 29, his 1994 appointment of her to lucrative part-time government positions is harder to ignore. The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board paid her $97,088 per year, while the California Medical Assistance Board paid her $72,000 per year. That was in addition to her salary as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County. I am curious how she will try to explain this away, or will friendly media just ignore it?
The progressive positions she staked out during her 2020 presidential bid will come back to haunt her once voters settle down and take a sober look at her. Supporting the defunding of the police, and soliciting bail money for rioters, won’t help her with voters who are worried about crime and who question the Democrat’s commitment to public safety, nor will her ineffective tenure as the “immigration czar” help with voters who have watched illegals flood over the open border and besiege even our blue Northern cities. As a member of the Biden administration, she will have a hard time distancing herself from the inflation, high gas prices, high interest rates, and profligate spending of the last four years.
So far, Harris has ducked anything more challenging than scripted Democratic rallies before devoted fans, but how long can she hide from tougher encounters? Are the Democrats trying to reprise their 2020 tactic used with Joe Biden and keep her hidden in the basement with handlers to filter out the more embarrassing stuff that she says? She’s a notoriously nasty boss—will we see former staffers spilling the goods on her?
Democrats have been euphoric since she ascended to the nomination, but will it last? She now leads Trump in some polls, but how solid of a lead is it? Will it survive the next two months of scrutiny? After all, there was a reason why she did so poorly in 2020. Her momentary “surge” may just be Democrats putting a brave face on the inevitable, or like the muted joy when the captain ordered an open bar on the sinking Titanic.
Will voters “buy” the “new and improved!” Classic Coke Kamala? Δ
John Donegan is a retired attorney and political junkie in Pismo Beach who finds no joy in this dismal race. Send comments through the editor or write an opinion piece of your own and email it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 29 – Sep 8, 2024.
Id rather be known as Tampon Tim vs being a convicted rapist and felon and a know friend of Epstein and global trade of child sex rings of rich people.
John, As usual throws out false premises, distortions and lies. I’m shocked
First she didn’t support defund the police, but redirecting the WASTE of POLICE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
https://abcnews.go.com/US/harris-2020-redi…
Tampons
“As written the law does not require products to be put in mens restrooms,”
https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-did-…
As for the Orange FELON, perhaps he should start following the laws (like no campaigning in Arlington?)
The Dems have you scared, as you should be John, you and your type are a dying breed
Shanti, thats a bunch of crap.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (101 members today) is comprised of more than 100 members of Congress standing up for progressive ideals in Washington and throughout the country. Since 1991, the CPC has advocated for progressive policies that prioritize working Americans over corporate interests, fight economic and social inequality, and advance civil liberties
https://progressives.house.gov/about-the-c…
Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC first major Congressional PAC to reject corporate PAC contributions.
SEVENTY EIGHT OF THE 100% DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS ALSO REJECT CORP MONEY
”Since January 1989, the U.S. has added 51.5 million jobs, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. During Democratic administrations, the nation has added nearly 50 million of those jobs. By contrast, Republican presidents have overseen the creation of some 1.5 million jobs over that period, according to BLS data.”
Read up on Robert Reich
Here’s Why Prices Are Still High
Americans feel like they’re still being price-gouged, even as inflation has come down. In many ways they’re right.
If we take a closer look at a few of the biggest drivers of inflation, we’ll see that some corporations are still using their power and shady techniques to keep prices high while they rake in record profits.
https://robertreich.org/
Kamala immigration czar? LMAOROG
“Harris was never the “border czar,” or put in charge of border security or halting illegal border crossings, as former President Donald Trump, Republicans and even the occasional media outlet have claimed. Instead, she was tasked in March 2021 with tackling the “root causes” of migration from the Northern Triangle and pushing its leaders — along with Mexico’s — to enforce immigration laws, administration officials said.”
PBS
February 7, 2024
”WASHINGTON (AP) — Just before the Senate voted Wednesday to kill the border deal he spent the last four months negotiating, Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford climbed a set of marble stairs outside the chamber and joined his wife in the visitors’ gallery.
As the Republican quietly watched from a floor above, briefly the outsider after defending his legislation in a last Senate floor speech, fellow negotiator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona was down on the floor excoriating the Republicans who had abandoned Lankford, one by one, after insisting on a border deal and asking him to negotiate a compromise on one of the country’s most intractable issues.
“Less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my Republican colleagues changed their minds,” said Sinema, a former Democrat turned Independent. “Turns out they want all talk and no action. It turns out border security is not a risk to our national security. It’s just a talking point for the election.”=”
AP
Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford: GOP colleagues said ‘we should have passed that’ immigration bill
”…But then Donald Trump came out against it — he didn’t want to give President Biden a political win on such a sensitive issue during an election year. And even though the bill contained most of the hard-line policies that the right wanted, it became toxic among Republicans. In the end, only four Republican senators voted for the bill, it tanked and Lankford was left holding the bag.”
NYT
”During negotiations in February, Lankford lamented the right-wing pushback—led by Trump and his allies—and revealed that a popular conservative media figure even demanded that he not address the immigration topic until after the election, or else be “destroyed.”-”
DAILY BEAST
Stock buybacks were illegal until Reagan made them legal in 1982. Just about the same time, wages stopped rising for most Americans.
It’s difficult to put too much emphasis on Harris’s past positions, especially those taken during a presidential primary campaign, where candidates usually commit themselves to more extreme positions than they do when running in a general campaign. In this sense, Harris has done what every other politician does. Consistency of position hardly seems to matter to most voters, especially given that Harris’s opponent has no discernible policy convictions and has changed his party affiliation at least 5 different times since the 1980s.
You argue against Walz’s policy of allowing tuition aid to undocumented immigrants, but I am having trouble following your logic here. Among other problems, your argument fails a cost-benefit analysis. Given the implausibility of deporting all undocumented immigrants in the country (which would be fiscally reckless and probably unconstitutional), why not help the poorest ones (the only ones this aid applies to) better their living situations so they can use their education for upward mobility and a higher standard of living? The more wealth they create, the more money they have to start businesses, the more taxes they pay, and the more they contribute to everyone’s benefit. They’re going to stay here anyway, why deliberately make their situation more miserable? The alternative would be to let these immigrants fall into further poverty, which would force them to rely on even more social services and further the national deficit and strain our already skimpy safety net. In this sense, Walz’s policy is fiscally conservative, and the cost-benefit analysis favors his position.
Your argument against providing them health insurance is flawed for the same reasons. Undocumented immigrants are far more likely than the general population to be uninsured and forego routine medial visits. When their health deteriorates enough, they often use the emergency room for primary care and are covered by emergency Medicaid. Shifting these patients off of Medicaid and into a state subsidy program may seem like a fiscal wash since these are two government-run programs, but emergency Medicaid only covers absolute emergencies—heart attacks, labor and delivery etc. and does not cover any follow-up visits after the patient receives their initial care. Given the benefits of preventive health care and the ability to have a follow-up visit, it’s clearly more fiscally responsible to provide these undocumented immigrants with state-subsidized insurance.
Also, what does it mean, exactly, to be pro-Palestinian? You seem to use this term as a pejorative, equating being pro-Palestine with being pro-Hamas. It’s important to distinguish Palestinian civilians, of whom Israel has killed 16,000, from Hamas terrorists. One can condemn Hamas terrorists while also seeing the deaths of 10,000 Palestinian children as equally reprehensible. Because of this, terms like “pro-Palestine” and “pro-Israel” fail us in trying to characterize who is fighting, who is dying, and for what reasons are they fighting and dying.
@VMM: Your “cost analysis” of providing these expensive benefits is based on the assumption that illegals should be allowed into the country in the first place, and that once here, it is our responsibility to look after their well-being. I don’t think that we can afford to do so. The world has an almost inexhaustible supply of desperately poor people looking for a better life, and we lack the ability to take care of them all.
You also assume a moral equivalence between Hamas and the Israelis. The difference is, of course, that the Hamas terrorists deliberately targeted innocent civilians, brutally murdering children and the elderly, and taking hostages to be tortured and killed at their leisure, while the Gazan civilian dead have been incidentally killed by the Israeli response while being used by Hamas as human shields as they launch their attacks against Israel. No country has ever passively accepted attacks because the attacker’s people might be harmed by their response. Consider the massive civilian toll in WWII. The people of Gaza voluntarily elected Hamas as their leadership, and largely appear to still support them. The carnage will continue so long as the Palestinian people hate the Israelis more than they love their own children.
The claim that Kamala Harris “put up a wetted finger into the political winds, and marketed herself as a fiery progressive” in 2020 is an oversimplification. Her policy positions during the 2020 primary were more subtle than just being labeled a “fiery progressive.”
The assertion that Harris had “less than 5 percent of the Democratic vote” in 2020 is inaccurate. Harris dropped out of the 2020 Democratic primary before the voting began, so she did not receive any votes in the primary elections.
The characterization of Tim Walz as a “regular guy” and a “progressive” is subjective. Walz has a relatively moderate record as governor of Minnesota.
The claim that the Minnesota law on menstrual products “clearly reveals that in fact, all restrooms used by menstruating students includes trans boys using the boys’ bathroom” is misleading. The law does not specify that trans boys must use the boys’ bathroom.
The contention that Harris “could have chosen popular Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro” as her running mate is untested. There is no evidence that Shapiro was seriously considered or that “her pro-Palestinian progressive pals loudly vetoed him.”
@John Donegan – Nobody is asking the United States to take care of all of the world’s desperate people, but you also need to realize that if someone presents themself at an official port of entry they have every right to seek asylum in the United States. This is codified into US law. Not allowing them this right, as you seem to be in favor of, is illegal.
Both Hamas and the Israeli military have killed civilians. Hamas killed 1,200. The Israeli military has killed around 16,000 to date. A dead child is a dead child, regardless if they were killed by a Hamas terrorist or torn apart by an indiscriminate Israeli bomb. Your suggestion that the Israeli military has killed civilians “incidentally” is wildly, breathtakingly inaccurate. Amnesty International and human rights organizations around the world have documented extensive abuses and probable abrogations of international law by the Israeli military, not limited to: 1) failing to take feasible precaution to protect civilian life 2) starvation as a method of warfare 3) acts of sexual violence and deprivation in the West Bank and Israeli detention facilities 4) the repeated bombing of civilian safe zones, like United Nations schools and hospitals 5) murder and wilful killing of civilians 6) forcible transfer of civilians. I could go on and on and on. It’s undoubtedly true that Hamas uses civilians as shields and has extensive tunnel networks that make precision bombing risky, but none of the abuses I’ve mentioned above can be explained solely by Hamas’s willingness to put civilians in harm’s way.
Yes, it is true that Hamas was popularly elected, but 76 percent of the current Gaza population did not vote in those 2006 elections, so I’m not sure what point you’re making here. In fact, support for Hamas has actually gone up since Israel started its military campaign. If you’re a Palestinian child forced to relocate several times to different “safe” zones, only to have those zones bombed and your entire family killed, how could you not have hostility towards the people who did that? As the US has found how so tragically in Iraq and Afghanistan, you simply cannot bomb your way out of a terrorist problem.